Obviously, some of the thermometers are inversely teleconnected to the continental temperature. That is apparently one of the features of REG-EM. It knows which series need to be inverted to find the “true” trend, similar to the Mann-o-Matic.

I understand a new, advanced algorethm is being developed that can not only invert individual series, but adjust series slopes to come up with the “true” trend. It’s going the be called the FIX-(s)-EN.

]]>
By: Mark H. https://climateaudit.org/2009/06/01/the-gracious-communicator/#comment-184372
Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:37:58 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6160#comment-184372It is commonly accepted that intellectuals tend to be thin skinned, but Steig’s ballastic reaction must set new a new benchmark for becomming unmoored. No doubt he took Steves statement that “…you should err on the side of caution in making your code available to independent analysis” to be a professional admonishment, and it touched off a barrage of self-serving defensiveness and charges.

The over the top wailing of being wronged usually suggests that someone is engaging in a deliberate descent into irrationality – a way of using denial, acting out, and delusional projection to defend the sense of moral self. Steig’s “I do not desire to act in a professionally unethical way, you do” is a way of placing his own motives on another person.

Obviously the fellow needs how to use mature defenses of the self, such as a mild humor.

I’m not familiar with the process of the criticism and reply. Does someone review the quality of the comment and reply or is it just added to the record?

I mean, what he said makes no sense in the physical world under any form of possible interpretations of science, so is there somebody who’s supposed to say—Dear Michael Mann, I’ve reviewed the situation carefully. Please explain what the heck are you talking about, Love boss guy?

I’d like to send one about inverted thermometers to Nature without going after all the endless detail. It’s too simple with only 34 thermometers being used.

Re: jeff Id (#146), that was originally pointed out by a reader on the Tiljander thread.

I really don’t see a distinction between the Youtube cartoon and Mann’s reply at PNAS.

]]>
By: Steve McIntyre https://climateaudit.org/2009/06/01/the-gracious-communicator/#comment-184369
Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:32:55 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6160#comment-184369Jeff, here are weights of the long temperature “proxies” in MBH98 AD1820 network. At the end of the linear algebra, 3 of 11 series have been flipped over. Thus, cold Leningrad temperatures in the late 18th century are interpreted as evidence of warmth. Perhaps Napoleon used Mann et al as forecasters in 1812.

The Team riposte is that it doesn’t “matter” – they can still “get” a HS without the flipped over temperature series and, indeed, nothing much “matters” except the bristlecones. (And you know the anguish and gnashing of teeth if you do a recon without bristlecones.)

From a mathematical point, it certainly evidenced to me that there was something wrong with the method when it resulted in such nonsensical results – a concept that thus far has eluded the Community.

I’ve got some smart people on tAV who despite the obvious nature of the problem trying to rationalize how it might be reasonable to read thermometers upside down. It’s a funny world we live in which I’m unlikely to ever understand.

but it is also worth trying to figure out why Eric made the post in the first place and what he was trying to achieve in constructing it the way he did.

They were only showing that they responded to criticism. Then they ended it “before” too many questions got to the point. I say “before” because they deleted postings even though they will not admit it.

It appears to me that your moderation policy tends to sometimes silence those who have legitimate doubts.

[Response: No. What we dissalow is the incessant cut-and-paste drive-buys of trolls, and those whose doubts are anything but ‘legitimate’ and whose analyses are anything but ‘rational’. -mike]

This a a real joke. The last time I attempted posting, I was not even criticizing. I expect it was automatic. Spelling needs checking as well.

I doubt I’ll forget that one until well after I’m gone. There are no words I can repeat here for the response or the (So surreal that I’m not sure if he means it) opinion.

Jeff, here is an excellent commentary on the use of obscure multivariate methods to flip data (referenced on an earlier occasion.) It is also a convincing answer as to whether it “matters” whether you flip data.

]]>
By: clivere https://climateaudit.org/2009/06/01/the-gracious-communicator/#comment-184365
Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:05:48 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6160#comment-184365Steve – I recognise that you are rather bemused by the premature closure at RC but it is also worth trying to figure out why Eric made the post in the first place and what he was trying to achieve in constructing it the way he did.

If you read past the condescending tone then it is obvious that he felt that something somewhere needed rebutting. However at no point did he identify clearly what it was. There were some footnotes added later that specifically mention Ryan O and link to the 2 posts at the Air Vent one of which contains content that Anthony reposted. Whilst I suspect it is the second post they were most concerned with the footnotes imply that Eric was not aware of it until he had already started work on his post.

It is clear from some of the comments by Eric and Mike Mann that the claim that the paper had been debunked was a source of irritation. This may be attributable to Anthony using falsified for his post title.

However that does not in itself explain the need to do the lecture and follow that with the technical justification for PC retention. As a result I perceive they do have significant concerns with what Ryan has produced. I am still not clear if Eric made the post because PC retention is the root cause of their concern or is the target for rebutting because he feels they have a viable argument here. Given that they made the effort to do the post then I would have expected them to raise any significant issues with Ryan’s work that they were aware of

I doubt I’ll forget that one until well after I’m gone. There are no words I can repeat here for the response or the (So surreal that I’m not sure if he means it) opinion. In my mind the upside down proxy isn’t nearly as bad as an upside down thermometer simply because nobody really knew if they were temp anyway. How this tiny detail can be assumed unverified is way way beyond me. But if they know the assumed mechanism for relationship how the [real snip] can they just flip it. Ok, so even beyond that they flipped it from the early recon to the late recon in M08 how idiotic is that.

At least they had the claim that it was a temperature proxy so who can say for sure what other influences are involved and it likely didn’t have a huge effect because there are hundreds of proxies. In the Antarctic recon they are THERMOMETERS for god sakes. Sure they are on the backside of the earth but even there they measure temp don’t they? And they only used 34 thermometers flipping 5 of them upside down!

If they don’t mind flipping a temp anomaly over I can think of some new modeling techniques which could help GISS get more in line with satellites.